Certainly not, but we aren’t going to have people swallow needles anymore either, or not as commonly anyway.
I agree, but nor should that green light something. A black market’s possibility doesn’t, by itself, say anything about whether we should make something legal.
I’m less sanguine about it than you, but that’s a fair olive branch.
Agreed on the legality. But we can assume that making abortion illegal will not effect demand to a really significant level through history. I’m not sure how I would totally feel if that wasn’t such a potentially significant factor.
Might be too late now. I just don’t know why both sides just don’t get together and say they are going to do everything in their power to decrease the amount of unwanted pregnancies (by definition all abortions are unwanted pregnancies unless it’s a mothers health thing).
Some of the issue is that some people don’t want schools talking about sex or offering contraceptives unless it’s about not having it (and we know abstinence only education is lacking and unrealistic). And some people think BC/condoms are sins. I’m not trying to start a religious debate by any means. Just some potential issues. I’m all for public schools providing that type of stuff. Sure it would be great if families did it but who steps in on everything else in kids lives when families suck? Would be nice if we didn’t have to have school lunches either. Preach no sex all you want but make damn sure well kids know how to avoid pregnancy should they decide to have sex.
And I know some people say they don’t think tax dollars should go towards birth control which is fine and I’m not even sure I disagree. From a tax standpoint I’ve got to think it’s far cheaper to pay for birth control than to pay for a bunch of unwanted children for years (possibly their entire lives).
I’m probably too optimistic about it. Just seems like way more middle ground there if both sides weren’t so invested with hating each other on this one.
Abortion always kills, back alley or not.
“In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.”
Agree. Where I think we disagree is if the killing is justified. I would say consent is required for the fetus to remain in the womb, and if a woman doesn’t consent, the killing is justified. Again, I would prefer if the process were more about removal of support, than actually killing.
Further down the road, the question is what is being killed. We don’t have the same morality issues for say killing an animal, but the animal is almost for sure more mentally advanced than the fetus.
Another example is the IVF process. That procedure usually results with many fertilized eggs, but only one is implanted. The rest are disposed of. People don’t seem nearly as bothered by that process, which results in the same outcome. Not sure why? Why don’t we have people protesting outside of those offices? They have the potential to kill many more fertilized eggs. Over 60K babies are born a year through IVF, and many of the procedures discard around 20 fertilized embryos, just simple math shows that the anti-abortion crowd should be concerned, but where are they on this one?
The back alley just has a better chance of killing mom.
Does that statistic take into account abortions performed because of the health of the mother? I’m not trying to make a point with it or anything I’m just genuinely curious. I have a friend who has a really rare skin condition that would threaten her life if she were to get pregnant. Her and her husband adopt.
I think society could take steps to drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Thank God my sister is in progressive Arkansas and not Bama or her IVF might have put her away for multiple murders!
Who’s going to pay for this Baby in getting This Hypothetical Hospital support. I sure as hell don’t want my taxes going to that. I have my Own kiddos to develop and raise. I can’t pay for a negligent partnet’s kids. Yes Abortion makes you a negligent parent.
I think this could be the game changer at SCOTUS. Virtually everyone concedes that at some point the state has a right to recognize and protect the life of a child, even if it hasn’t been born yet. The advancing state of technology, I think, has moved where that line is drawn - and SCOTUS is likely to say “look, changed circumstances - the Roe v. Wade regime no longer applies because the new balancing act of rights has to take into account the new state of science.” This gives conservative justices some cover to reverse a long standing precedent and also play a softer angle other than “Roe has always been trash, we’re finally shitcanning it”, which they really don’t want to say in a really important decision.
Not sure if they can get Roberts on board, though - I don’t think he wants a reversal of Roe as the biggest case of his legacy.
It’s worth reading regardless of where you stand on abortion.
I never suggested that the fetus be put on life support? Not sure you read my post correctly? I think maybe another poster suggested that?
Getting an abortion can be the responsible thing to do. I wouldn’t label everyone who gets one as negligent.
This is why I try to leave the fetus’ status out of the argument, and only bring up the woman’s consent. Doesn’t matter if it’s a person or not, another person does not have the right to use my body without consent. I’m a man, but you get my point.
The proper Republican response should be more like:
“No one should be aborted. Every life is precious and even though these are unwanted children we need to make sure they have a shot at life.
Education? Healthcare? Fuck that shit. Trump got me my tax cut and I’m glad the number of kids covered with insurance is going down because we need more money for Afghanistan, maybe Iran, maybe North Korea. Might have to kill some of those fucking Muslims.
I’m pro-life!”
I might have missed a few pull yourself up by your bootstrap chances in my sarcasm.
It’s still ok for men to get abortions so the law is not fair.
But that’s not possible - unless you believe that a woman has full autonomy over her body, her “property”, up until childbirth. And that’s a radical (and untenable) position. There has to be a balancing act of rights because the rights of the child have to be considered prior to childbirth.
If AL and MO are trying to force the hand by giving zero allowances, how does that ‘make’ USSC rescind Roe v Wade?
I don’t follow their logic.
This is what I think.
Who do you propose has a stake in a woman’s body other than her?
Can you provide an example of a situation in which another person has rights to another body besides pregnancy? I don’t think a person having rights or ownership of another person is a moral situation.
I disagree that my position is untenable. I haven’t heard a good argument yet to support the notion of a person having a stake or ownership of another person.
What their actions do is force legal challenges (which there will certainly be).
Once each level Court reaches a decision (which someone will oppose); it then goes to higher and higher Courts. (With the U.S. Courts of Appeal being the last before the Supreme Court).
Now. Keep in mind that while the Supreme Court does not have to hear challenges…it is doubtful that they would not review some of these very restrictive Laws that these States are devising. (If they get that far. There are no guarantees that challenges to these very restrictive Laws will go further than one of the lower Courts).
No, because there is no other situation in which another human being is involved. There is no other situation where that is the case. This is unlike every other situation, so it isn’t comparable.
If you believe this, then how do you square a woman asserting ownership of a person-as-her-property up until childbirth?
It’s almost like some of these red states are having a dick measuring contest over it seeing who can go further and further. We’re a few years from Mississippi saying “we will ban them, kill the doctor who even said abortion, and permanently sew the vagina of the woman who asked. And we will sign the bill with a confederate flag pen!”
#Heritage not hate, states rights, don’t tread on us.
Make up a negligible amount. The vast majority are premeditated elective killings of innocent human lives.
No, it’s pretty much human sacrifice for the promise of more casual sex.